1915.]
Grand Lodge of .Missouri
iIi
be supported by some evidence. If the accused is not guilty of the offense with which he is charged, it was his duty to himself and to Freemasonry to take the stand and satisfactorily explain his conduct. No attempt whatever is made to do this, and in the face of the abundance of clear and uncontroverted testimony establishing his guilt, the Lodge has acquitted him. Freemasonry is judged by the world at large more by the manner ;n which it deals with offenders ag-ainst the moral law than by anything else. and a failure on the part of the Grand Lodge to mete out to offenders in such cases as this where the guilt is clearly established an adequate penalty would subject the fraternity to merited reproach. 'Ve, therefore, recommend that the 'action of Hebron Lodge, No. :\54, in finding Bro. James A. Lewis not guilty on specifications Nos. 1 and 2, be set aside and for naught held, and that he be and is hereby found guilty on both specifications, and, further, that he be and is hereby expelled from all the rights and privileges of Freemasonry.
XVI. In the Matter of Braymer Lodge, No. ] 35, Bro. O. E. Leslie, Accuser, } vs. Bro. Geo. S. Dowell, Accused. STATEMENT. The charge of unmasonic (,onduct in this matter consists of two specifications: number one, that Bro. Geo. S. Dowell, a practicing physician, insulted the wife of the accuser; number two, that while the accuser was passing the office of the accused he was called into said office and when leaving' it was assaulted by the accused and struck on the head several times! to which he made no defense. The accused plead not guilty as charged in specification number one, and not guilty to the charge in specification number two, but admitted that he did strike the accuser while denying that he assaulted him. Testimony of profanes was taken and the trial skillfully conducted by able counsel for accuser and accused. There is much conflicting testimony. The wife of the accuser testifies to the facts charged in specification number one and these are denied by the accused. The wife of the accused, however, in some respects corroborat.es the testimony of the accuser. There seems to be little. doubt, however, as to what occurred under the second specification. '.rhe accusel' was on his way home when called into the office of the accused, who had prior thereto suspected t.he accuser of carrying a gun and who had the Town Marshal in a room adjoining his office to Qverhear the conversation between him and the accuser relative to a 'money demand路 路o路~路 ~~ttlement. After some questions as to this by the accused, the Marshal was called in, and, at the request of the accused, searched the accuser, finding 3, pistol in his pocket. The accuser requested that the accused be searched, which was finally